How did I not know that?!?

I was reading something on Twitter the other night when I came across the work “parochial”. Now, this is certainly not the first time I have ever seen this word. In fact, I have come across it many times. However, when I saw it a tweet, devoid of context, I realized something: I really did not know what the word meant.

It was kind of odd. I consider myself reasonably well-read and articulate, and I’m certainly not shy about looking up any word I do not know. But I realized that, in this case, I had just never bothered to look up parochial. I don’t know why or how, but I had somehow made it to the age of 50 without ever knowing what parochial meant. (If you don’t either, go ahead and look it up now. I won’t tell.)

Map of UK by Tourizm Maps © 2003

And this is not the only time recently that I had to ask myself, “How did you NOT know that?” A couple of weeks ago, I was looking at a map of England (I can’t remember why) and I noticed that Scotland is attached to it. Yes, believe it or not, I did not know that. I always thought that Scotland was an island, like Ireland. I have looked at maps of the world, of Europe, countless times in my life, but I somehow never noticed that Scotland and England are contiguous. It’s amazing (not to mention embarrassing!)

When I learned that you don’t have to swim or take a ferry to get to Scotland from England, I flashed back to another time I was made aware of one of these “holes” in my knowledge base. When I was in my early 30s, I moved from the Halifax area to Montreal. I made that trip by car, alone (in a 11-year-old Subaru that I was sure was not going to survive the trip. It did, barely.) Anyway, as I neared Montreal, I noticed that there were signs indicating various bridges. I bypassed these, of course – you do not need to cross a bridge to get to Montreal! As the tall buildings of downtown Montreal receded in my rearview mirror, I still didn’t understand. I actually had to stop at a service station and ask for directions before I learned that you do, indeed, have to cross a bridge (or use a tunnel) to get to Montreal. And so I learned, just shy of my 33rd birthday, that Montreal is an island. How did I NOT know that?

How about you? Any embarrassing “holes” in your knowledge that you were made aware of at a painfully advanced age? Let me know in the comments, if you dare!

The end of the search for (audio) fidelity (or, ode to Technics SU-V98)

I own a Technics SU-V98 integrated amplifier. I bought it some 20 years ago from Grenada (remember them?) when they were getting out of the audio equipment rent-to-own business to concentrate on VCRs. That amp, with the matching tuner and Technics 200-watt speakers (along with a turntable, CD changer and cassette deck), powered me through my personal Golden Age of music listening. Up until that purchase, I had been trying to improve my audio gear (within my basically non-existent budget) from the time I received my first portable record player as a birthday present. Sound quality was important to me then. I remember taping music over the air from an AM transistor radio as a kid and feeling so dissatisfied with the sound. With the advent of FM, sound quality improved, but FM radio was no substitute for a well-cared-for LP (or, later, CD) played on a good sound system.

But my search for better and better sound changed with that Technics purchase. I remember quite clearly feeling, when I heard that system, that the sound was good enough to satisfy me. I knew (and the past 20 years have borne this out) that I would never again feel the need to “upgrade”.

This is not to say that the Technics system is an “audiophile” one, or that I am an audiophile myself. I simply had an internal sense of what I was looking for and, when I found it, I did not feel the need to go further.

So why the sudden attack of nostalgia? Well, I mentioned that I still own the Technics amp.  Although that’s true, I rarely use it for listening to music anymore. It is now mainly used as  a “home theatre” amplifier (despite being “only” stereo) for our living room TV/DVD.  In fact, I don’t listen to very much music at home anymore. I still listen to music a lot, but most of my listening is done either on the street (on my smartphone through earbuds) or in the car (on my docked smartphone plugged into the factory stereo in my Toyota Corolla). Music at home is now basically just background music at mealtimes or in the backyard. Gone are the days of listening to music as an activity in and of itself.  I no longer find myself sitting alone in a room, positioning myself so as to maximize sound quality, listening to music while doing nothing else. And I used to do that a lot. I listed “listening to music” as a hobby on applications for summer jobs without a second thought. It was as logical as listing “reading” as a hobby. But somewhere along the way, I changed. It’s been ten years or so since I sat and carefully listened to a CD (I think it was Rush’s “Vapour Trails,” for what it’s worth.)

It’s not just me who changed. I see around me a fundamental shift in how music is enjoyed. Oh, audiophiles still exist, and Neil Young recently caused a stir with his comments about the poor quality of current digital audio formats (see here for an audiophile discussion on Young’s comments) but, as the linked piece points out, the real loss of fidelity comes from the playback systems people are using, not the digital source material. And those playback systems are tied to people’s lifestyles, not their desire for musical fidelity. Music today is mostly listened to on portable MP3 players/smartphones, using earbuds; on computers, through laptop speakers or relatively cheap powered speakers; or on car systems, where volume and (especially) bass trump fidelity. (If you have to buy a pad to keep your subwoofer from rattling your licence plate, you ain’t interested in fidelity.) Most people are buying compressed music in the form of single-track digital downloads and eschewing CDs.

Of course, I may be wrong and the changes in my listening habits are merely a result of advancing age. I do see some evidence that sound quality (if not fidelity in the audiophile sense) is making a comeback, within the bounds of current tech (I’m thinking of Beats by Dr. Dre and Apple’s AirPlay system). How about you? Has the way you listen to music changed over time? Are you more or else interested in sound quality than you used to be? Comment, as always, are welcome!

Short take: Why the government will ultimately get a pass on the F-35 fiasco

I follow a number of journalists and economists on Twitter. This gives one a very interesting perspective on current events. By following economists, you learn why everything you (as an average Joe) know about economics is wrong. By following journalists, you learn what to be outraged over.

The latest outrage is the planned purchase of F-35 fighter planes by the Harper Government (HG for short). It appears that the HG’s estimate of $16 billion for the purchase of the jets is off by some $10 billion (at least!) The $10 billion is the estimated cost of operating the F-35s over a 20 year period, which the HG conveniently neglected to mention. Andrew Coyne (one sharp – and funny – cookie, by the way: follow him on Twitter @acoyne), writing in the National Post, described the HG’s handling of the F-35 file as:

“a fiasco from top to bottom, combining lapses of professional ethics, ministerial responsibility and democratic accountability into one spectacular illustration of how completely our system of government has gone to hell.”

And he may indeed by right. Even so, I believe the HG will ultimately emerge from the F-35 affair relatively unscathed. I rest this belief on two key points.

The first is the fact that the average Canadian believes the HG lies about everything anyway. Just like they believe the Opposition does, and all politicians do. Here’s what I mean: If you gathered a bunch of average Canadians in a bar and said to them, “The HG has said that the F-35s (which do not yet exist, by the way) will cost $16 billion. When all is said and done, do you think the planes will really have cost this much?”, I would wager that the vast majority would say “No way.” If you pressed them, they would say the planes will probably cost more. “How much more?” “Hard to say.” “Could it be $5 billion more?” “Yeah, maybe.” “Could it be $10 billion?” “Wouldn’t be surprised.”

Remember, we live in a world where the vast majority of MAJOR public expenditures, for whatever purpose, seem to invariably come in way over budget (and behind schedule). It would be absolutely no surprise to anyone to see that the current estimates (for something that extends so far into the future) are way off base.

The second pillar of my argument relates to the “HG lied to Parliament/Canadians” angle, which a number of media stories have played up. The HG has tried to get out in front of this by saying the difference is simply due to different accounting methods. As Defence Minister Peter MacKay said on CTV’s Question Period:

“This is the way that accounting has been always been done for major procurements. We do not calculate as part of the acquisitions costs what we pay military personnel. Or the fuel. Or the cost of keeping that existing equipment running.”

Of course, as Coyne and others have pointed out, this runs counter to Treasury Board directives (not to mention generally accepted accounting methods for these types of estimates). A number of journalists have used the example of an automobile purchase to illustrate how ridiculous it is to not include operating costs in the overall cost estimate.

But therein lies the reason that the HG will get a pass on this file. It will not be at all difficult for the average Canadian to believe that the HG honestly felt that the relevant number to communicate to the public was the “sticker price” of the F-35s. After all, when we are buying a car, the price of the car itself is paramount. Yes, we know that we have to pay for gas, insurance, maintenance and repair, etc., but (if you already own a car) you pay for those things right now, anyway. Yes, if you feel you need to economize, you will perhaps look for a car that is easier on gas (a 4-cylinder, rather than the 6 you have now), or one that is cheaper to repair (maybe domestic, rather than imported), but this is an impressionistic exercise and, crucially, is usually looked at separately from the purchase price of the cr. Most people do not calculate the actual projected operating costs over a 5-year period and include it in the car’s price. And they certainly do not use the actual-5-year-total-cost in conversation: “I can’t believe, when I crunched the numbers, that the Ford Flibertigibit will only cost $79,750 over 5 years. And I’m paying $89,595 for my Volkswagen Whatsit!” No, they say, “I talked the Ford dealer down to $19,995, all in – out the door! Bow down before my haggling skills!”

Bottom line – out here in the real world, no one will be shocked that the F-35 costs will actually be higher than the HG said. And no one will feel particularly “lied to” when they hear the HG’s explanation for the difference.

Comments, as always, are welcome. I approve all comments that are not spam.

Short take: A proposal to get rid of the “loser” point in hockey

There are a number of things about today’s NHL that annoy me as a hockey fan. The shootout, for one: this is 100% a crapshoot, in my view. The number of teams that make the playoffs, for another. But the one thing that annoys me the most about the NHL is the “loser” point for those teams that lose the game in overtime or the shootout. I know the loser point has contributed to parity in the league, but it has done so by artificially creating a logjam in the standings, especially in the later part of the season. Moving up the standings is difficult even when you’re playing well, as the teams in front of you are frequently picking up points even when they are losing.

There have been occasional proposals to change the system for awarding of points. Most that I have seen have involved making a regulation win more valuable by awarding three points for such a victory. Others have involved simply getting rid of the loser point. This has merit, especially since games can no longer end in ties. (Remember that the original rationale for the loser point was to cut down on the practice of “playing for a tie” to get a point and hold your opponent to one.) With no ties possible, why award a loser point to discourage what can no longer happen?

However, I do not think this proposal goes far enough. What is needed is a system that rewards regulation-time, “regular” victories (that happen because your team played better in the 60 minutes of “real hockey”) and properly penalizes, rather than rewards, losing. I propose the following: two points for a regulation victory, one point for an overtime or shootout victory, and  zero points for a loss.

The main benefit to this system is that teams will be encouraged to play for a regulation win, which (to me) is the desired outcome of any game. If you are unable to beat your opponent fair and square in regulation time (when real 5-on-5 hockey is being played), your punishment is that you only get one point instead of two, even if you win in overtime or the “skills competition.” And there is NO reward for losing.

Now, I’m sure there are plenty of arguments that can be made against this plan, but I am not interested in arguments that speak to “parity” or how the standings will change under this proposal. My rationale for this system is based purely on the principle that a regulation victory is the desired outcome and should be encouraged.

What do you think? Comments, as always, are welcome.

Has the (hockey) world gone mad?

(Sorry this post is a bit delayed – WordPress problems…)

So, Don Cherry ranted last weekend about there not being enough Ontario-born players on the Toronto Maple Leafs. No, he did. Really. (Read about it here, or see here if you want to watch it in all its video glory.) Now, I’m not a follower or fan of Mr. Cherry, so he might have referenced this belief before, I don’t know. I know what he has said about Europeans and “French guys” (some time ago, granted), but this Ontario thing seemed to come out of left field a bit.

But what was even stranger to me was the reaction. People seemed to actually take this seriously. Yahoo Sports’ Greg Wyshynski provided an analysis (with a big table, no less) and even the (normally) reliably bullshit-averse Ted Bird came down on Cherry’s side on this issue.

Has the world gone mad?

Bird offered that:

“Ontario produces more and better hockey players than any other province or country, and Cherry makes a legitimate hockey point when he says the Leafs are cheating themselves and their fans by not mining talent in their own diamond-rich backyard.”

Now, I don’t know if Ontario really produces more AND better hockey players, but Ted Bird knows more about hockey than I do and I am willing to take his word for it. But, even if that’s the case, why are there none on the Leaf’s roster? Why in the word would a Toronto hockey team pass over the “more and better” local Ontario players to employ the fewer and worse non-Ontario lot? Isn’t it possible that, on a case-by-case basis, the Leafs decided to sign, develop or trade for what looked like the best available player at the time and it just so happened that they were born somewhere else? I find it hard to even imagine how the where-the-player-was-born conversation could arise. When does it happen? Where does place of birth sit in the hierarchy of factors that are used to rate players?

Wyshynski noted the following in his piece (in discussing Cherry’s view that “it’s important to have Ontario-born players on the Leafs”):

“This is a bit more subjective, but we agree with Cherry. First, because it does matter to young players that they have NHLers to look up to; and seeing a guy who played in your youth leagues and grew up in your neighborhood making the show with a team that you root for is a hell of a motivator. Second, because even though the pressure is greater on players who are playing back home, so might the motivation to excel.”

Now, I’ve never played organized ice hockey, but I’m a Canadian and I grew up playing street hockey (and was blessed with enough speed to be not bad at it). The players I worshipped as a youth were chosen for (a) the team they played for (the Habs) and (b) their style of play (Yvan Cournoyer, Guy Lafleur). I didn’t give a hoot where they were born, or grew up, or played junior hockey. And although Wyshynski’s point that someone who “played in your youth leagues and grew up in your neighbourhood making the show with a team you root for is a hell of a motivator” has the ring of truth, the reality is that many, many, many more young players are inspired by NHLers whose skills, heart and work ethic resonate with them (regardless of their origins) than they are by the local boy who made good.

And a final note: even though Ted Bird exonerated Cherry from any accusations that “partisanship and politics” were at play in his rant, does he (or anyone) think for a second that the “fiercely loyal Ontarian” Cherry would say anything different even if Ontario didn’t produce more and better hockey players? My feeling is that Bird so wanted to draw a distinction between Cherry’s views and what Bird characterized as the “tireless drum-beating of Quebec media for more francophones on the Canadiens,” that he basically gave Cherry a pass, regardless of any logic to the contrary. I have to say that I fail to see any difference. Would Bird think the “tireless drum-beating” was OK if francophone areas produced “more and better” hockey players than other areas?

Comments, as always, are welcome.

Thoughts on the Bill C-30 debate

Like many others (if social media is any indication), I have been following the debate on the federal government’s recently-(re)introduced Bill C-30. If you don’t know it by number, the government has helpfully entitled the bill “The Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act” (just in case you’re wondering whether you should stand with the government or with the child pornographers on this issue). Debate over this bill has been loud and acrimonious and I do not intend to recapitulate it here. Nor is it my intention to weigh in on the relative merits of the bill. Rather, I want to briefly discuss a few things that have struck me since the debate began.

The first thing that I find interesting is that most commentary regarding the bill focuses on  only one section (the coverage on privacy expert Michael Geist’s website – michaelgeist.ca – is an exception). This, despite that fact that the bill is not all that long. A lot of the commentary has focused on Section 17, which outlines the circumstances under which “any police officer” can ask an ISP (Internet service provider) to turn over customer information without a warrant. This CBC story summarizes the issues here (and highlights Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’ lack of knowledge of the bill). However, other sections have been the subject of commentary as well, including Section 23 (characterized as a “hidden gag order” in this blog post by Canadian privacy lawyer David Fraser) and Section 34 (which CBC’s Terry Milewski says will give “Orwellian” powers to shadowy government “inspectors”). The latter story is most interesting: it raises the spectre of Big Brother and the Thought Police and lays out how the bill will allow the government to access and copy any information on any ISP network. That really does sound Orwellian. So why has so little of the commentary on the bill focused on this section? Now, I did not do an exhaustive review of all the commentary; my point is that one would think, based on the content and the tone of Milewski’s article, that this would be a major focus of criticism of the bill. But it hasn’t been. Could it be that this is just Milewski’s interpretation and that others might have a different one? That is quite a different thing than the unequivocal bill-gives-the-government-access-to-everything message of the article.

The second observation has to do with the sheer volume (in both senses of the word) and tenor of the reaction to the bill. While I was researching and writing this post, Andrew Coyne helpfully wrote this piece in the National Post, in which he asks why the current bill has triggered such a visceral reaction when similar legislation introduced in the past (Coyne points to a bill introduced by the Paul Martin Liberals in 2005) caused not much more than a whimper by comparison. Coyne points to a number of possible factors, but fingers “the general climate of hysteria in which politics is conducted these days” and “the arrival of the online community as a political force” as the main culprits. (I should note that pollster Frank Graves pointed out via Twitter (@VoiceOfFranky), in response to the Coyne article, that public opinion has been moving away from a desire for public safety, no matter what the privacy cost,

“@acoyne Oct 2001 65% agree police should have more power even if privacy compromised: 2010 number has plummeted in straight line to 32%”

…which would explain at least some of the hysteria over the bill.) But I basically agree with Coyne. I think social media (especially Twitter) tends to concentrate and amplify anger. People have only 140 characters to explain why they’re mad as hell and they’re not gonna take it anymore. Add to that the bravery that comes from anonymity and a distrust of the “lamestream” media and you have the recipe for a potent stew, indeed.

The third observation is the opposition reaction to the bill. Liberal public safety critic Francis Scarpaleggia asked Minister Toews in the House of Commons how Canadians could trust that the government wouldn’t use the private information they obtained to intimidate citizens (the question that led to the infamous “He can either stand with us or with the child pornographers” line from the Minister). I wonder if Mr. Scarpaleggia asked the same question of his own party’s similar 2005 proposed legislation? How can Liberal criticism of C-30 be taken seriously when they were prepared to do the same thing (if not in a more extreme form) when they formed the government.

This is not to let the government off the hook. Stockwell Day, during his tenure as Public Safety Minister from 2006 to 2008, assured Canadians that the government would not introduce the very type of legislation we are now debating. It’s getting to the point where it seems impossible for a politician to avoid an accusation of hypocrisy no matter who he/she is or what he/she says. I am increasingly convinced that the only thing we can say with assurance about any politician these days is that he/she is worse than the others.

The final observation concerns the public airing of Minister Toews dirty laundry (his 2008 divorce). To me, this issue is this: what are acceptable forms of protest? The Ottawa Citizen’s Dan Gardner tackled this issue in the context of Bill C-30 in this column. In it, he notes:

“Said person or persons [Twitter user @Vikileaks30] found Vic Toews’ divorce records and broadcast them, verbatim, on Twitter. This was simply wrong. Not illegal. But wrong.

It was not, as many claimed, a legitimate protest against Toews’ Bill C-30, which would create a system of warrantless Internet surveillance. Protesting an invasion of privacy by invading privacy is like protesting violence in the NHL by beating up Gary Bettman. It’s wrong. And stupid.

And it was indeed an invasion of privacy. Toews’ divorce records may be public documents in the sense that a determined person can lawfully find them and read them but there’s a vast amount of private and potentially humiliating information available in public documents, as every private detective and opposition researcher knows. Imagine your divorce records – or statements of claim, or bankruptcy records, or mortgage records, or property registrations – being passed around the Internet like a YouTube video. And tell me your privacy hasn’t been violated.”

And if you think that is an acceptable act, what of the threats by the “Anonymous” hacker group to release “private” information about Minister Toews unless Bill C-30 is withdrawn? Gardner had this to say:

“Threatening to release humiliating information if the government doesn’t withdraw C-30 is not activism. It is not sticking it to The Man. It is not an homage to V For Vendetta.

It is the crime of extortion. And a particularly severe instance of it.

Remember the election? People voted. The Conservatives won, like it or not. They formed a legitimate government with a democratic mandate to govern, like it or not.

Maybe you think the Conservatives are governing badly. (I do.) Maybe you think C-30 is a horrible bill. (Me, too.) Doesn’t matter. The government remains legitimate and democratically mandated: When people use a tactic like extortion to force the government to change course they are subverting democracy.

And to do that while posing as defenders of freedom against tyranny? Nauseating.”

Andrew Coyne, in the piece referenced earlier, had this to say about the @Vikileaks30 leaks of Minister Toews divorce details:

“The relevance of such information to the issue at hand, the fairness of publishing it without offering the minister the chance to respond, the morality of attacking another person’s reputation without putting your own name on the line — all these were dismissed as distractions, the concerns expressed by working journalists, who deal with these questions for a living, waved away as no more than the dismay of the “gatekeepers” at the loss of their traditional role.”

So, what is acceptable? I knew a person once who never lost an argument. It wasn’t because of the logic of their positions or of the defence of those positions. The reason they never lost was because they were willing to keep escalating the argument until the other person capitulated. When you know someone will stop at nothing to win, not personal attacks, not even violence, you quickly learn that it is simply not worth it to argue. I feel the social media community is a bit like that. Their sheer numbers, in addition to the reinforcement of their baser impulses through exposure to what Coyne called “the armies of the like-minded that are the hallmarks of social media” and their anonymity contribute to a vicious circle that escalates anger (and then protest) beyond any reasonable form. And this phenomenon is only going to grow. It is not the time for reasonable men or women. Reason doesn’t cut it anymore. Cynicism reigns (and note that I recognize that I am not immune to cynicism!) and with it a kind of formless anger waiting to coalesce on any issue. It reminds me of what I have said in the past about rap music: after a while you just get tired of angry people shouting at you. In my darker moments I look at the online community like that – as a group of continuously angry people just waiting to attack something.

What do you think? Comments, as always, are welcome!

Smartphones and planned obsolescence

I was a bit late to the smartphone party. The first one I owned was a BlackBerry Storm (the first model, with no WiFi). This was the first touchscreen BlackBerry. I didn’t go into the store (in March 2010) planning to buy a Storm, but I knew I was going to get a BlackBerry. I was considering starting a full-time private consulting business and wanted a BB for its email capabilities. I was talked into the Storm by the Bell salesperson. Although the consulting thing never materialized, I fell in love with the Storm, despite its many quirks: the infamous “clickable” touchscreen, the lack of WiFi, the small amount of application memory, the need to do periodic battery pulls to free up memory, etc. The phone soon became an indispensable part of my day-to-day routine (and that was before I was on Facebook or Twitter, or had a blog). Just web browsing, news, multimedia, ebooks and a few key apps (Scoremobile and Vlingo come to mind first).

That said, I was not completely satisfied with my purchase. The main issue was the lack of WiFi. My plan had one gigabyte of data and I was always fearful of exceeding it (although I never came close to doing so). So when the phone developed a problem with the touchscreen after having owned it for less than a year (the touchscreen sometimes wouldn’t “wake up”), I began to look around at other alternatives (even while my Storm was getting repaired under warranty). Having just signed a 3-year contract to get the Storm, I knew that I was going to have to pay full price for a replacement, so I began to look at the lower end of the smartphone range.

After owning a couple of other phones (Motorola Dext and LG Optimus Chic) for a very short period, I began hearing about a new Motorola phone that would soon be launched by Bell – the Atrix. This phone was described as the first “superphone”, with a dual-core processor, 1GB of application memory and 16GB of onboard storage (plus the ability to add storage via microSD). The phone looked very interesting, as did the accessories, which included a “lapdock” that effectively turned the phone into a “laptop-lite”, as well as a number of docks. So, for the first time, I became an “early adopter” – I signed a new 3-year contract and bought the phone on the first day it was available (March 17, 2011). I’ve had the phone ever since. For most of the time I’ve had it, it’s been great. It was launched with Android 2.2, but received an upgrade to 2.3 (“Gingerbread”) in June of 2011. That upgrade made what was already a very good phone great. It took care of a few problems, most notably poor performance in the car dock (the phone would get hot and lose charge, despite being plugged into the charger). From that OS update until a more recent minor update (from 2.3.4 to 2.3.6), I cannot think of anything to criticize about the phone. However, since the more recent update, I have been having some problems with losing the WiFi connection and “laggy” performance. These are minor problems, however; I’m still very happy with the phone overall.

Then, the other day, I was on the Bell website and I happened to notice something that struck me. Less than one year since the Atrix was launched with great fanfare, it no longer appears on the Bell site. Not only is it not featured, it is not there at all. Meanwhile, it looks as though the Atrix will NOT get an upgrade to the next version of Android (4.0 “Ice Cream Sandwich”).

So my phone is effectively obsolete, after less than one year. Of course, I signed a 3-year contract, so I am stuck with this phone for a while yet. And I don’t mean to imply that this is a bad thing, or that my phone is somehow unsuitable because there are newer, bigger and more powerful phones out there. What I have learned from this experience, however, is to be a bit careful about investing money in accessories. I am sure, even if I buy another Motorola phone, that the docks I have (which cost about $200 at retail) will not work with the new phone. So even if I was willing to invest in a new phone, I would also have to buy new accessories (especially a car dock, which is indispensable if you want to take advantage of the GPS and navigation capabilities built into all new phones, while complying with distracted-driving legislation). With the price of smartphones being so high (the new Samsung Galaxy Note will likely be over $700 with no contract), this becomes a substantial investment for something that will be obsolete in a year (or less!)

And, because of the fast pace of technological innovation, it is impossible to look into the future and see where things will be in even a year, much less the 3 years that you have to be tied up in a cell phone contract in order to get a discounted phone.

One potential way out of this “obsolescence trap” is to step back from viewing your phone as a complete multimedia entertainment system. One innovation that allows you to do this is the tablet. I purchased a Samsung Galaxy Tab (WiFi-only) a couple of months back. Since I bought it, I have noticed that I use my phone less and less. Most of the “entertainment” functions that I used to use my Atrix for (web surfing, multimedia), I now do on my tablet. There are even apps that allow you to text from your WiFi-only tablet, as well as placing and receiving phone calls (Dell Voice even gives you a phone number and allows for free calling to all major Canadian cities). So you really don’t need your phone for anything more than calling (as long as you have access to a wireless network for your tablet). And wi-fi Android tablets are much cheaper than high-end smartphones (at full undiscounted price).

I’m interested in hearing from others as to how you approach smartphone purchases in an era of rapid technological innovation. Do you always want the latest technology? And, for those who have a tablet, how has the tablet impacted the way you use your phone? Comments are always welcome – I approve all comments that aren’t spam!